Explaining This Election to Italy

On October 15, I found myself depressed by the wide spread – 10 points to 13 points – in the polling of registered voters, favoring Barack Obama over John McCain. Then the next day some of the most reliable of the many polls were carried out, prior to the October 16 night-time presidential debate. These were polls of the best kind: not just of “registered” voters but of “likely” voters (people who have a history of voting regularly, and give other indications of serious plans to vote). Both Gallup and Rasmussen polls showed that in this universe the margin between the two candidates had narrowed to 2 points or 4 points. In other words, a virtual tie. What a shock! Then in the presidential debate that night, which observers mostly rated either a tie or a close win for Obama (he is so fluent, so verbal, so calm, so mellifluous), practically everyone agreed that McCain made his best showing of the three debates. He kept Obama on the defensive from beginning to end. Obama rebutted well, in that clever and calm way of his. But differences kept continually being sharpened. McCain kept using the example of “Joe the plumber” who had accosted Obama in a receiving line in Ohio (all caught on videotape) about the high taxes Obama promised to place on individuals and small businesses that took in more than $250,000 per year.

Joe said he was trying to buy a plumbing business himself, hiring others to work with him, and needed to earn at least that much to succeed in paying all his helpers. If Obama levied the high tax on him, he said, there was no way he could buy the business on his own. Why punish me? he asked Obama. Why deprive my co-workers of their jobs? Why punish them and me as though we were “rich”?

The videotape shows Obama saying that he wanted that tax money to go to people earning less than that -- and then saying that “spreading the wealth around” is good for everyone. That sentiment shocked much of the country, and McCain let all 57 million viewers of the debate dwell on that point. He mentioned “Joe the plumber” nine times in the next forty-five minutes.

Americans hate “class warfare.” They hate the confiscation of income earned by the successful, in order to hand it to those who have not earned it. (They cherish the idea of helping the poor, but not of coercively taking from those who work hardest to give their hard-earned gains away indiscriminately.) Americans consider that kind of equality a “wicked principle,” which undermines personal responsibility and initiative and creativity, and vastly increases the power – and the corruption – of the State.

Thus it looks now as if the last fifteen days of the campaign might be focused around the question of high taxes on some, and “giveaways” to others. A promise of high taxes on a few violates the American sense of justice right down to its roots. There is plenty of opportunity in America, and it is wrong to give special rewards to people who do not earn them, unless through no fault of their own they are ill, or weak, or too young, or too old. Able-bodied people should be treated equally, and win rewards by their own efforts.

“Joe the plumber” has become for a few days the best-known voter in America. Everyone is talking about him, and about the differences between the Obama and the McCain senses of justice. Obama’s seems European, McCain’s seems like classic America. This difference alone, if McCain can make it stick for fifteen days, may be worth at least five percentage points in the final election.

Of course, everything is stacked in favor of a Democratic victory this year. The sudden economic drop in the mortgage sector (caused largely by Government action), poisoning all the most common financial instruments, and the resulting panic helps the Democrats. Weariness with eight years of a Republican presidency – just as with the eight years of the Clinton presidency – also calls for a change of political direction.

On the other hand, the smell of victory in Iraq (the rapid drop in violence and the return of economic and civic vitality) takes that weapon away from Obama. The sudden drop in oil prices (from $140 per barrel to under $70) takes away that Obama complaint, too.

Never forget that American Independence was founded upon a rebellion against unfair taxes imposed by the British King. Americans ever since have regarded high taxes as the royal road to excessive State power and corruption. They prefer their personal independence.

Balanced judgment still insists that Obama is likely to win, and maybe even win by a high electoral vote total. But the signs of a stunning upset are beginning to gather in the night air. McCain is a fighter. (He is also a national hero whose five-and-a-half years of undergoing torture and near-starvation in a Vietnamese hell-hole of a prison are legendary.)

Once again, McCain has had to pilot his campaign through flak to the left and to the right, just as he did when he flew his fighter-bomber over Vietnam. Once again he is maneuvering for precise aim before firing his best shots. He is trying now to lock in on the targets of high taxes and big government spending, and to get there just before Election Day on November 4.

It just might be a very close race, after all, right up to the end. Europeans, I am sure, will be thoroughly stunned if McCain wins. But (some of us think) that would be a perfectly American ending.

To be sure, the election of Obama would also be a great victory for America, not least in helping to heal its long failings and struggles concerning race. It would be wonderful to see a black man as President.

On the other side, it is a form of racism to elect a man solely for his color. What matters most are the principles a man stands for, the policies he ties his fate to, his character, and the wisdom of those who surround him in his awesome task.

The election of 2008 will be a watershed.

Prepared for Liberal, October 16, 2008

A Historical Change in Guidance Systems

Some social democrats and socialists, especially in Western Europe, view the current financial crisis in America with a certain gladness. They think this may discredit “democratic capitalism,” and confirm the superiority of social democracy. This stance returns our public conversation to the questions of the 1972 electoral campaign, during which a significant number of left-wing American thinkers and activists began to rebel against statist institutions, habits, and ways of looking at things propounded by the New Left, and the many promoters of the large omnivorous state.

Looking at the state of social welfare in the United States at that time, these liberals (social democrats) were “mugged by reality.” They saw that social democratic programs did not work. Since they had begun to find socialism in all its forms unsatisfactory (and self-destructive), they sought a better guidance system. They found it in the American tradition of limited government, personal initiative, and economic inventiveness. They wanted to trim government by cutting both taxes and expenditures. They wanted to preserve the welfare state, by limiting its functions, and restoring responsibility to individuals and families. Enemies called this movement “neo-conservative.” It was actually neo-progressive. It gave primacy to the initiative, creativity, individual moral maturity, and to Aristotle’s conception of virtue. Without recognizing it, they adopted something like the Thomistic evaluation of the human person as the most noble and beautiful of God’s creatures. In their eyes, the common good meant nurturing citizens in virtue and happiness.

By 1980, many in this young movement had begun to coalesce around presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, who believed that a just government had to be a great deal more limited than the government he would inherit, and that its budget needed to be greatly restrained. Mostly, he believed that the most dynamic propellants of a modern economy are the inventions and risk-taking of imaginative entrepreneurs.

Reagan recognized that more than 80 percent of new jobs in this country are created by businesses that employ twenty-five persons or fewer – and that the crucial incentives that lure entrepreneurs from the sidelines to the creative arena are marginal tax rates—which he cut from 70 to 28 percent. By also dropping the tax rates on capital gains (assets) to 30 percent, Reagan offered entrepreneurs a lure that they could not resist.

He foresaw that they would risk their capital, work as hard and inventively as they could, constantly hire new people, and keep 70 percent of their own capital gains. Under Reagan, the world experienced the passage from a Machine Age to an Electronic Age, a transformation that created whole new industries and large numbers of jobs.

More than half a million new small businesses came into being in each of the eight Reagan years, and 20 million new jobs overall. This new burst of production raised our GDP to nearly one-third larger than it had been when Reagan took office.

Reagan also opened the way to new methods of improving the welfare of the poor and the vulnerable. Not all of them were realized during his administration. An important part of it – asking millions of Americans to volunteer to help the poor – was put in place by his successor, the first President Bush. Another – welfare reform – was reluctantly accepted by President Clinton in 1996. Still other parts were extended by the second President Bush (e.g., generous aid to Africa).

The best way to grasp the new welfare approach pioneered by Reagan is to visualize it as a change in the nation’s guidance system: Aiming not at a larger, but a more limited state. It gave ample room to the dynamisms of civil society: enterprising individuals, voluntary associations, lively civic corporations, churches, and other institutions that provide aid to the poor, the ill, and the down-on-their-luck.

Today, the crisis in the home mortgage system, which has involved many other financial institutions in its toils and tangles, has raised new questions about our guidance system. Do we need another fundamental shift?

Recall that the current system failed in all three of the interconnected systems: political, economic, and moral. For a decade, my colleague at AEI Peter Wallison ( Privatizing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks) has been showing how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored buyers and resellers of mortgages, have been improperly regulated. Usually, the Republicans favor deregulation. But in this case, the Democrats led by Senator Chris Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank blocked attempts to regulate Fannie and Freddie, both large sources of campaign contributions and votes for the Democrats. That was the key political failure, which brought the whole house of cards tumbling down these past few weeks.

The economic system failed when financial whizzes too clever by three-quarters invented elaborate schemes for packaging mortgages, good mixed with bad, which they resold for a profit. Then they invented still fancier schemes of "derivatives" to resell for further profit. They did not examine as closely as they should have the rot running through what they sold, the levels upon levels of packaging that disguised it, and their own responsibilities.

The moral system failed when Americans who borrowed at rates unknown to their parents or grandparents and rejoiced in the rapidly rising value of their homes, did not stop and think: "Something smells. This will all come crashing down." We watched the gains pile up, and we glowed with pleasure.

No system will work without vigilance in all three sectors. Making up for a train of abuses in our time will bring some of the pains of purgatory to everyone, before the system rights itself, each part of the system vigilant over the others.

The advantage of our poor system is that it carries within it latent powers of self-correction – not without pain, yet in a way that may be relied upon better than any other.

Michael Novak’s website is www.michaelnovak.net

(c) 2008 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info at thecatholicthing dot org

Published in The Catholic Thing October 8, 2008

John Derbyshire Threw Down the Glove (Part II)

John Derbyshire does not trust the word of Mary the Mother of Jesus, nor the word of Luke the Evangelist. It was to Luke that Mary told the story of the Annunciation of the birth of Jesus. What she described is not according to the ordinary rules of nature; neither she nor anyone else thought so. That is the point, isn’t it? The birth of Jesus is beyond human powers. It is not contrary to the rules of nature, since its origins lie in nature’s God, adapting Himself to nature’s laws. But it is a singular event. Mr. Derbyshire’s call for proof led me to realize that the only way that most of us know about our own births is on the word of our mothers and fathers. I believe that in courts of law the testimony of a first-hand witness (with a corroborator who heard the same from that witness) counts as “evidence.” Beyond this is also the evidence of the lives of these witnesses and their community.

The narrative is not a piece of speculative science. It is heavily dependent upon the credibility of a first-hand witness. Before even assessing that evidence, however, it is worth trying to grasp the power of the narrative involved, whether one ends up believing it or not. Perhaps some people, if not John Derbyshire, can willingly suspend disbelief for about ten minutes.

Suppose that the Creator of all things wanted to choose one of His insignificant creatures on a small, insignificant planet in one of a myriad of galaxies to invite into His friendship. Suppose He wished to communicate to them to what lengths He would go to dramatize His love for them. He would come to be among humans via a human mother, and thus, as truly a man. God and man at once, in all the contingencies of time and place.

John Derbyshire has no room in his well-trained mind for this, we all know. But for a moment just stick with the narrative. This narrative suggests that Jesus is conceived of God—true God and true man.

Rubbish! Some still insist. Well, no other subject was more often painted over a span of five centuries (from 1200-1700) than the Annunciation. What is it in that narrative that so touched the minds and awed the imaginations of an entire civilization—two civilizations, including Byzantium?

The paired narratives of the Annunciation and the Nativity were brilliantly imagined, it seems to me, as a way for the Creator to reveal to ordinary shepherds, carpenters, fishermen, and others that Jesus, the Son of God, is not merely God, but also fully human; and not merely human, but also God. What has touched the minds of billions of Christians (today alone there are two billion plus) down through long centuries of human history is that God, the Almighty, the Creator, Governor of nature and nature’s laws, so humbled Himself as to limit Himself in Jesus Christ within the confines of a human body, human suffering, the whole human condition--and in circumstances of poverty and lowliness.

To Muslims, of course, this “tripling” of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is a blasphemy against monotheism; and to devout Jews, too. Worse still, the Ineffable, Unpronounceable, Unnamable Almighty cannot possibly stoop so low as to become man.

To atheists, as well, it is nonsense.

Well, maybe all these rejectors are correct.

Nonetheless, even today the largest single body of believers in the world is made up of Christians, one out of every three persons on earth, and growing more rapidly (in Asia and Africa particularly) than ever before. All these descend from a band of Twelve fishermen. This tiny band each loved their Lord enough—and trusted what He said enough—to give their lives for Him. Some think the growth of Christianity so steadily and over so long a period (often first among the learned), mostly by the preaching of missionaries rather than by conquering armies, is almost beyond the ordinary and the natural.

****

It is easy to see why John Derbyshire and others do not believe this narrative, of course. Certain preconditions have to be met, pretty steep ones. If there is a Creator of all things, including the laws of nature; if Jesus is, truly, the Son of God, then maybe Mary’s story and Luke’s corroboration of her telling it is not impossible. I suspect that John Derbyshire’s skepticism comes down to three points, behind which there lies a huge presupposition.

- John Derbyshire does not believe that there is a Creator, Almighty God and Father;

- John Derbyshire does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God;

- John Derbyshire does not trust the testimonies of Mary and Luke.

The preconception that leads John Derbyshire to all these denials is one of method. His definition of ‘method,’ as best I can discern it, would disallow the truth of any of these three propositions (and others in the Christian narrative). John Derbyshire can’t get there from where he is.

That may be why Mr. Derbyshire holds that his own identity, his own community, and his own destiny lie outside any participation in the inner life of the Christian community. He understands himself as standing outside it.

Well, humans have always been free to do that. Many who have encountered the Christian narrative throughout history have turned away from it.

Is Christ the key unlocking the secret to your personal identity? Saying “Yes” or “No” to this crucial question has had huge historical consequences, and continues to do so. It has dramatic consequences in individual lives, and in whole civilizations (or in parts thereof).

One consequence is that uniquely, Judaism and Christianity fix the axis of world history in the arena of conscience, in which the searching of the inquiring mind and freedom of the will are the decisive energies.

“Will you also go away?” Jesus once asked His disciples, after many in the crowd began to drift away from what He was saying. It is not news that in every generation some refuse to come into His company and others walk away. For Christianity, the golden thread of life is liberty.

The upshot is, John, that from here on it is up to you. As Thomas Jefferson put it: “the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds…Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain.” It is up to you, John, to consider the many kinds of evidence that allow you to make an important practical decision that may determine the course of your life.

I do not offer you here the sort of evidence that derives from scientific inquiry or merely philosophical reasoning. Rules concerning the credibility of witnesses, of course, do rely on practical reason and common sense usage. In this case, however, the question tilts over into the arena of that sort of trust in the word of others that may be best described as “faith.” Someday, perhaps, I will take up the profession of apologetics, which is concerned with putting forth the evidences for the Christian faith. But not in No One Sees God, and not at this moment. There are other places to search for it.

Published in National Review Online September 25, 2008

John Derbyshire Threw Down the Glove (Part I)

John Derbyshire asks for evidence that Jesus Christ was born of the “overshadowing Holy Spirit” and a virgin, as the Christian creed affirms. Not exactly the kind of evidence that Mr. Derbyshire likes best. But evidence is of many types. For instance, there are a very few scientific experiments that I have performed on my own, so that I have personal empirical evidence for them. However, most knowledge in the many fields of science is far beyond my comprehension and personal experience, with the result that I can only “know” through science by way of belief. This belief rests on my trust of the scientific community and its word. Once in a great while, researchers have lied, or their reported findings have not proven to be replicable by others. Much more often, earlier scientific propositions are rejected, to be replaced by better ones as the surrounding scientific field benefits by new discoveries and better methods. In No One Sees God, I limited myself chiefly to the kind of evidence that is available to reason apart from revelation. After all, even Jewish and Christian revelation has as its presupposition that the human reason to which it is addressed has its own integrity and vigor. Questions about the “Mother of God,” however, belong to the special field of “evidences for the truth of the Christian faith.” That is the subject of many, many books, but not of No One Sees God. The task I set for myself there was much more limited and modest.

Since my good friend John (and NRO colleague) has thrown the glove down, however, the only honorable thing for me to do is attempt to meet his challenge. I offer two comments that at least place the claim that Mary is the Mother of God, Jesus Christ, in its proper context. First, the actual account of Mary’s conception comes directly from her, as given in testimony to the physician Luke, a close disciple of the Apostles and the author of one of the four Gospels.

Second, Mary’s account that Jesus is both “born of a woman” and “conceived by the Holy Spirit” powerfully suggest the humility of the Almighty. He was willing to stoop down from His majesty and omnipotence to present Himself to human beings in all the limitations of the human body, psyche, hazards of “this vale of tears,” in short, the whole otherwise insignificant human condition. When I can get back to a computer—I write this from Belmont, North Carolina—I would like to elaborate on these two comments.

Read John Derbyshire's original post here.

Published in National Review Online September 24, 2008

God as Beneficent Father? A reply to Heather Mac Donald

During our hour-long Templeton Conversation at the Harvard Club (September 17), Heather kept coming back to this question: “What is the evidence for your statement that God is a loving, beneficent father?” I do not think I answered her well, so let me try again. There are two lines of reply. One is from reason alone, the other from Jewish and Christian faith. Plato and Aristotle were led to believe that contemplating the Divine is the greatest of all forms of happiness, since in that union of mind with Mind, human minds rest in union with the greatest of all Goods (drawing toward itself all lesser goods), and the most luminous of all Sources of the intelligibility found in all things, and of the intelligences that grasp it.

They argued that the existence of contingent things raises the reflective mind to the Source of all existents: self-subsisting Being, immaterial, unchanging, more like “spirit” and “mind” than like any changeable, material, dependent thing.

They reasoned that the existence of things that can perish implies a sturdier “necessary” form of existence, which persists through the coming and going of contingent, material existents.

Finally, they observed the abundant (not to say overwhelming) beauty of earth and starry sky, sparkling oceans, and flames in the fireplace. They observed the virtue and goodness of some men, even heroic virtue, and great deeds. These observations led them to thoughts of the “immortals” and the endurance of good over evil, of being over nothingness, of beauty over ugliness. To be sure, this is just a tipping of the balance, since evils and tragedies remain superabundant. But enough to give thanks to the Divine, and to see the natural world as, on balance, tipped toward benevolence rather than malice.

Not all women and men of reason agree with the ancients in this way of addressing the problem of evil. Philosophers only rarely agree on important points. For the Greeks (and Romans like Cicero and Seneca), the practical imperative was: Trust human inquiry, human liberty, and the prevalence (or at least the lasting beauty) of nobility of character.

The other way of coming to a conviction of the ultimate “fatherly benevolence” comes from Jewish and Christian faith, not unaided reason. Therefore, it was not the proper focus of No One Sees God. Heather’s question, therefore, asks for a reasoned defense for trusting in the Jewish and Christian God—that is, for placing one’s faith in Him. No fully developed adult should place this trust without giving reasons. For the supposition that the living Source of all things (knowable through reason alone) can address human beings through “revelation”— words—is that human beings are capable of hearing and observing, gaining insight, making judgments about what is true and what is false, and of giving a reasoned account of each step in their journey toward faith.

Yet as I wrote many times in No One Sees God, a reasoned defense of the Christian faith (and in my case specifically Catholic) must await another book. No One Sees God is about the God known by reason alone. It is not about what we learn about God through faith.

Judaism itself offers crucial lessons for all humankind (the Creator of all, who calls all to truthfulness and good will). Christianity adds its own “good news” to what humans know through reason. Both Judaism and Christianity have as their presupposition the divine predilection for addressing humans through “the evidence of their own minds” (Thomas Jefferson).

I have gained the impression through e-mail exchanges with Heather and through our one and only face-to-face conversation, that she might well accept a deist conception of God. What she cannot accept is the Christian conception of a “benevolent father.” Because

Jewish-Christian revelation depends for its reception on the reliability of human intelligence to reach at least a rudimentary knowledge of God, finding a way to this rudimentary knowledge through reason is an important exercise for Jews and Christians. Also, since dialogue is most fruitful when participants are willing to meet each other “where they are,” that ancient form of theism (through reason alone) is what No One Sees God aims for at the moment, a modest and limited goal. But that goal, illuminating the road toward the reality of God as grasped by reason alone, is ambitious enough. In recent generations, it has been largely neglected.

A recent Pew poll of over 30,000 respondents reports that over one-half of agnostics actually believe in such a God (but not the Jewish-Christian God), and one-fifth of all atheists do the same. Many unbelievers, then, join Aristotle and Plato in following the evidence where it takes them: to knowledge of the Source of all that is, was, and imperishably will be.

Published in The Catholic Thing September 23, 2008

Is Notre Dame Back?

South Bend, Ind. — You had to be there. So much rain came down overnight and on into the morning that people were speculating that the Notre Dame/Michigan game on September 13 would have to be cancelled — an unheard-of possibility in football. The fear was the predicted thunderstorms stirred up by the remains of one hurricane’s “tropical storm” residue, in addition to the westerly rains. The sky was unbroken gray and darker for almost two humid days. I kept telling my worried son (who comes north from San Antonio, where he works with USAA the military insurance — and now mortgage — company, along with my two dear grandchildren Emily and Stephen, for one Notre Dame game a year): “Rich, this is Our Lady’s school. At three o’clock, a half hour before game time, the clouds will part, the sun will break through, and a vision of Our Lady will appear, on her diadem in diamonds the words ‘For Life’ and unfurling from her right hand a blue banner announcing ‘ND–My Guys,’ and from her left hand a long mauve banner inscribed in gold: ‘Sarah!’”

Well, most who heard me repeat this thought it cute, but at 2:57 P.M., to be exact, the clouds did part and the sun shone through, while the rain ceased. Everyone saw this, and I said: “Didn’t I tell you?” I think no one else saw Our Lady appear, just as I had said, but in my mind’s eye, I did. Of course, not everyone I made my prediction to was taken with Sarah, only a few were. How could they see the Sarah banner? (Notre Dame’s faculty seems very much a part of the old Left, labor union anti-Republican to the bone, the Left’s version of “social justice” virtually unchallenged.)

As it happened, the storm blew past to the north — over Michigan — for almost two hours, and Notre Dame stadium enjoyed a pleasant afternoon.

Actually, very pleasant.

In the first five minutes, Notre Dame scored three touchdowns — two, I think, in a 1:47 time of possession. Poor Michigan kept fumbling, just as Notre Dame had two years ago. It was 21-0 after five minutes. It sure seemed that Notre Dame was back.

Through the next 55 minutes, though, Notre Dame scored only 14 more points, and Michigan 17. Michigan racked up more yards both on the ground and in the air. To hold an angry and spirited Michigan to 17 points was a pretty good day’s defense for Notre Dame, and after all they really did halt Michigan cold for the last two quarters.

But Notre Dame’s offence still isn’t back yet. There were splendid flashes of brilliance, both in the speed of the wide receivers under long passes, and a couple of exciting breakaway runs under a roar of cheers, “Hughes, Hughes, Hughes!” — which to the unpracticed ear at first sounds like a series of “Boos!”

It was so good to win. To feel that 2007 has been forgotten. Sophomores and freshmen turned in a superlative afternoon.

Michigan State next weekend, with its great ground attack, might well jolt this team back from cloud nine. The good news is that the game is up in Spartan country. Notre Dame usually wins there, Michigan State winning at Notre Dame. The other good news is that these young kids on the new Notre Dame really want to win, and the veterans maybe more so.

I did like the vision of Our Lady I saw, just as three P.M. struck, even if nobody else did.

Published in National Review Online September 15, 2008

Empathizing with Atheists

After all the activity on NRO’s “The Corner” following my September 17 conversation with Heather Mac Donald about atheism and theism, a raft of e-mails came my way, about one-third of them from self-described atheists. These sturdy atheists taught me some things of which I had been insufficiently aware. One said he hated being told by Christians, sometimes standing uninvited at his own door, that his atheism was inadequate, even inferior. Another found the smugness and condescension of believers “insufferable,” and told me I should not have used that word of atheists until I had experienced the “insufferable” Christian version myself.

As it happens, just this morning two kind-looking ladies came to my door, and after wishing me a beautiful day, asked to leave with me a copy of The Watchtower (accepting which would probably place me on a “revisit” list). Several times in the past our home has had similar visits, not always as pleasant as today’s. I tried to be as polite and firm as I could, and give the ladies a smiling “God bless you” as I sent them away.

I can see how this would be annoying to an atheist. It sometimes bothers me. On the other hand, these were two nice women earnestly doing something difficult, in order to show their own inner fire to obey the imperative: “Go and teach all nations.”

These recent e-mails further made me think how difficult it must be to live in a country which is over 80-percent Christian in population, and annoyingly Christian in public life, with a faith sometimes unavoidable even inside one’s own front door.

All of us have met Christians who are in fact smug, condescending, insufferably certain that their own brand of the faith is superior to ours. Not a few tell Catholics that our faith is a corruption that will doom us to hell. We Catholics have also met some of our own faith so narrow-minded that they view us with barely controlled contempt. Some are narrow-minded in a traditionalist way, others in a “progressive” way. Point is, there are internal divisions, too.

But few of us belong to a minority as small as the small sect of atheists.

My informants also try to show me how “insufferable” are references to atheists as a small “sect.” They do not feel theirs is a sect. They think theirs is the “reality-based community.” Several take pains to insist that atheism is not an “opinion,” but a fact. They do not “question” it, they say, because it is just a solid fact. Not a fantasy, like Christian faith or Bugs Bunny.

It appears that they get their idea of what a “fact” is from the following sequence: They observe data discernible to the five senses, and then formulate an insight that unifies these observations in an intelligible way, and then, third, verify the insight against further evidence from the senses. They come to “facts” — real, solid, existential things, not fantasies — through this “verification principle.”

But philosophers have shown that this “verification principle” is not itself empirically verifiable. It needs to be argued for, not merely asserted. Each operation in the process — observe, gain insight, verify — is subject to many meanings, and understood in different ways by different philosophies. My atheist correspondents too easily pass over the epistemological and metaphysical difficulties in their choice of method (or at least in their descriptions of that method).

For instance, proving a negative has long been thought to be, if not impossible, at least unreliable. Necessarily, then, atheism is a belief, not a fact. It may be a belief with (as atheists think) a very high degree of probability, even though we theists judge it to have a low degree of probability. By contrast, agnosticism seems to be a more tenable commitment than atheism. Problem is, in action one must act as if God does not exist (etsi deus non daretur), or as if He does. In action one must make a commitment that one cannot quite make on purely intellectual grounds. It is by our deeds that we show what we most deeply believe.

One implication of this finding, interestingly enough, is that there are many who call themselves believers, whose actions show that their heart is committed elsewhere. Their deeds are out of line with their words. Similarly, there seem to be persons calling themselves atheists whose actions seem more in line with Jewish and Christian (and natural law) norms than their words do. For such reasons, wisdom seems to suggest that final judgment on any one of us is beyond our poor capacities. It is best left to an undeceivable Judge, to Whom our hearts and consciences and intentions are transparent.

Thus, what some atheists present as “fact” is actually a “belief,” a commitment to a certain way of viewing the world. Sometimes (not always) that way is a simple-minded materialism. They will accept as evidence only material things, as detected through the five senses. For them, beyond material things nothing else is real. However, this affirmation of theirs is not a statement subject to empirical test. It is a choice of one procedural rule rather than others.

Thus, some atheists seem to be evading the complexities behind their own narrow beliefs — and don’t want to think about them. They are more comfortable in a world of touch, sight, hearing, taste, scent. To stay solely in that world may be to understand themselves much too narrowly.

To many of us, for instance, it seems that acts of insight and judgment are far more vivid, valuable, and even pleasurable — we are exhilarated by the eros of inquiry — than are acts of our senses, delightful as these sometimes are. Do we not often arise from hours of reading, thinking, or writing, having been intensely captivated by insights and judgments, to find that our bodies are stiff and sore, perhaps too cold or too hot, hungry, thirsty? For many, insight, judging, and loving are penetrating human experiences more precious than the activities of the senses. Because of their preferability, the range of their activities, and their sublimity, these activities have often been thought of as a human being’s “spirited” acts, the acts of the human spirit.

Human beings seem to be best understood as either inspirited bodies or embodied spirits — a unity at the core of our being. Without the distinctive refinements of human brain cells and neurons, we lose our capacities for insight, judgment, love. But without exercising our capacities for insight, judgment, and love, our bodies fall far short of our human potential, often in a way so unworthy of ourselves that to others, we become objects of scorn: “You pig!”

That is why to make a mistake in understanding oneself is almost certain to lead to mistakes in coming to an understanding of God. A materialist will be looking where no evidence of God can possibly be found. His choice of method predetermines his failure.

Just as it helps believers to understand that atheists can be irritated by condescension from believers, it may help atheists to see that insisting that their own convictions are unquestionable “facts,” while those of others may be airily dismissed, undermines their claim to being fair-minded. If we are to have a dialogue based on mutual respect, we will all have to change our ways.

Meanwhile, the threat to our lives and liberties posed by a worldwide pseudo-religious totalitarian movement demands that all those who love liberty stop being divided against ourselves. True enough, we each have reasons for our own convictions, but we do well to respect the convictions of all others willing to fight alongside us against the common threat. In this great work, we will have to learn a new skill in civil conversation concerning matters of fundamental differences in philosophy and religion. These differences can no longer be ignored as if they did not exist, and were not of any serious importance. Manifestly, they are.

In previous generations, Americans have tacitly agreed that pluralism is best protected by remaining silent about profound differences in conviction. Today, pluralism needs a new set of protections: civil, reasoned conversation about much that divides us, so that fears of one another might be diminished, and enduring respect for one another come to flower.

Published in National Review Online September 23, 2008

Defining Marriage Down

A question laid down by one of the most prominent television commentators in America (Bill O’Reilly) has been nagging at me for a couple of weeks: What is wrong with gay marriage? The people Mr. O’Reilly has had on the air did not persuade Mr. O’Reilly—and probably not many others, either. They did not offer reasons. Meanwhile, in America, the Courts are “defining marriage down.” The battle has to be addressed in the courts because very few legislative bodies throughout the land would be able to gain enough popular votes to sustain “same-sex marriage.” An American dictionary defines “marriage” as “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” But in 2003, the high court of Massachusetts imposed a more flexible meaning: “a voluntary union,” “the commitment of two individuals to each other.”

In other words, the courts are trimming marriage down. The courts are hacking away the centuries-old meaning of marriage and transmuting it into a mere contract of friendship and sexual relation between any two persons who seek it.

Why do some homosexuals (not all, not even most) seek this ceremony? A public ceremony gives public vindication and public recognition. It elevates the relationship into a public (not merely a private) reality. It is true that there are practical motives in addition, the legal warrant for sharing in health, pension, and other benefits that now belong solely to traditional marriage. Actually speaking, these two aims could be kept separate from one another, but the real emotional force in the discussion is the seeking of public approval and recognition.

But if we water down the legal concept of “marriage” to include a mere contract between two individuals of whatever sex, we will not in principle be able to stop with same-sex unions. Under the same principle two spinster sisters should also qualify for similar benefits. Maybe, even, two elderly neighbors. Or any small band of needy people (not limited to two) who wish to enter into contract with one another.

If the main aim of “marriage” is reduced to “benefit-sharing,” why stop at husbands and wives, or same-sex couples. Are there not many sorts of companionships whose members might be far more needy?

What our common law has heretofore supported was a lifelong exchange of vows (not just a contract, but more than that, a covenant) between two persons (but not just any two persons). They needed to be man and woman. They needed to be able in principle to have children through their marital union, even though it is not the business of the state to check up to see if they are actually doing so. Because of the central importance of this “marriage act” suited to having children, traditionally a marital covenant is not even official until that act has occurred. The marriage covenant is not merely a matter of words.

In actual fact, of course, some gays and lesbians do rear children, even though not children conceived in the “marriage act,” and children who share in the blessings of having both a mother and a father, with all the benefits that provides. Yet these parents often provide a good upbringing, and that is to their credit.

Nonetheless, the state has its reasons for treating husband-wife marriages and same-sex marriages unequally. Virtually all children (excepting only test-tube babies) are born from man-woman unions. It is in the high interest of the state to regulate these unions carefully, and with special privileges. From the point of view of the state, not all sexual acts have the same public impact.

States that suffer a decline in childbearing and childrearing begin to wither in many other aspects of national life, such as prosperity, defense, and a financially well-undergirded future. Thus, states have long developed policies that encourage the married life of husbands and wives, who have the potential of rearing children in a safe and loving environment. They do this in the historically warranted expectation that such households will far more frequently raise accomplished human beings and good citizens. The extension of privileged (therefore unequal) benefits to this unique human relationship, defined not solely by sexual acts but by the probabilities of fecundity and the sound education of children, is a state’s investment in its own future.

The state has no comparable interest in the friendships or sexual relationships of its other citizens, however good, however noble. For sound reasons, it has heavily invested its ceremonies, formal recognition, and legal benefits in that single matrimonial form aimed at the transmission of valuable qualities, through the sexual intercourse of a man and a woman committed to a lifetime of rearing good children, who will become free responsible citizens, fit for maintaining a free republic long into the future.

A particularly fruitful activity of the state is to reinforce and to support the public recognition of the special beauty and utility of the permanent love of a mother and father. Such a love by its daily workings engenders between the parents a sense of unconditional trust. It engenders among their children the confidence of being unconditionally loved, the capability to give love to their fellow citizens, and a powerful example to emulate in their own commitment to a future generation.

Apart from the experience of such unwavering, outward-going love, the capacities of children to appropriate the habits of fraternity and equality with their fellow citizens are deeply deprived. What they have not received, how can they give? They are likely later to reveal certain emotional dependencies, which may also wound their capacities to act as freely and independently as free citizens must.

As Alexis de Tocqueville observed, Americans were prepared to trust their lives to the fellow citizens of their free republic by the marital fidelity experienced in a vast majority of their families. By contrast, he noted the ill effects of the widespread institution of the mistress:

In Europe almost all the disorders of society are born around the domestic hearth and not far from the nuptial bed. It is there that men come to feel scorn for natural ties and legitimate pleasures and develop a taste for disorder, restlessness of spirit, and instability of desires. Shaken by the tumultuous passions which have often troubled his own house, the European finds it hard to submit to the authority of the state's legislators.

In some of the more radical courts of law in America (such as the Supreme Courts of California and Massachusetts) the word “marriage” is being devalued. The seeds of this devaluation lie in cultural shifts outside the activities of the state. The Sexual Revolution brought “free love,” the severance of sex from procreation, and the desire for easy divorce. These developments did much to weaken monogamous marriage between husband and wife over the next three generations.

Thus, today’s devalued marriages have eroded the trust of men and women in one another, and of their children in them. This lack of trust in marriage has spread throughout the whole of society and now weakens even the joy of young people about to be married, and makes singles less likely to commit to this uncertain bond. (Even so, in America today, two out of every three couples that pledge to marry “until death do them part” do stay married until death.)

Maintaining the full faith and credit of the marital bond which gives birth to a nation’s families is a more serious responsibility of governments than protecting the full faith and credit of the nation’s currency. A strong currency is extremely beneficial to nations. Strong and faithful families, oriented toward the rearing of highly skilled, virtuous, creative, and responsible children are necessary to them.

One of the ways in which the state encourages actions crucial to its own health is by honoring such faithful married persons and rewarding them with benefits. It would seem difficult to argue plausibly that gay ‘marriages,’ however love-filled and satisfying they may be, give as much added value to the future of a nation as marriages that are able to bear, nourish, and give rich and complex example to the coming generations.

Published in Liberal, September 10, 2008

Sarah! A New Star is Born

I don’t know if the word has reached Europe yet, but Americans have been in a swoon about the authentic voice of most of America, whose favorite sport is hunting, shooting, and dressing moose and caribou in the Alaska wilds. She is a woman of the American West. She is confident and fearless. And she is so down to earth she seems like someone out of your own parents’ home. This is the kind of woman we all grew up with, the kind that have been the strength of America since the West was opened in the 1850’s. She introduced herself as a “hockey mom” (not soccer, in Alaska), and asked the crowd if they knew the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull. Hardly taking a pause, and with a defiant smile, she added: “Lipstick.”

Sarah, the Governor with an 80% popularity rating, has become the single most admired of the four running mates, more popular than Obama and Biden and McCain.

The Republican center and right regards her as a heroine, and are now wildly enthusiastic about their presidential ticket. Further, the Democrats made a bad mistake in making fun of small towns like Sarah’s Wasilla, Alaska. There are only 262 cities in the U.S. larger than 100,000, but almost 100,000 towns of 10,000 or fewer, such as Wasilla.

The millions of Americans who have disabled children in their extended family had tears in their eyes when Sarah raised her baby who has Down syndrome high above her shoulders, proud of him in front of the convention and the whole world.

New polls say that a majority of Americans regard the press attacks on Sarah as unfair. The sympathy vote has shifted to the Republicans – especially against the oh!-so-sophisticated journalists. The bitter, low-road attacks by the media and some of Obama’s supporters had the wonderful result of drawing an enormous television audience – one of the biggest in political history – to give the Republicans a good look.

Nearly as many Americans watched Sarah’s acceptance speech on television as Barack Obama’s. (Then McCain topped Obama’s total, the next night.)

This is a different country today than a week ago. This is a different election. You can see it on the stunned faces of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Both their confidence and their amour-propre have been wounded by the good-humored needles Sarah (and the other Republicans) have jabbed into them day by day. The presidency, Sarah said, is not a journey of self-discovery. Obama has written two memoirs, she pointed out, but not a single piece of legislation, in the US Senate or in the Illinois State Assembly. Speaking in her perfectly pitched Midwestern/Western twang, with sparkling feminine mischief, she had the audience rolling with laughter, almost as much as Rudy Giuliani before her.

The Democrats attacked Republicans last week with sneers. The Republicans replied with wit and humor and happy laughter.

Wise and intelligent observers of politics are beginning to say aloud that McCain and Palin will win on November 4th. But those who like to be sure they are not being carried away by momentary enthusiasm say the election is likely to be won by small margins in the last few days of the campaign. There are many hurdles for each of the candidates to jump before then. The good news is that Barack does so well in the big urban areas that the best way for him to add to his totals in the most highly contested states is to increase his vote in small towns. He may have lost that chance by the nature of his supporters’ attacks on Americans who live in small towns.

John McCain has never been a great orator. His arms are still stiff from almost six years of harsh physical torture. But his closely-watched speech was immensely touching, as he described how “America saved me” from that foreign prison, and how while he was in prison, he learned how not to put himself first, but forevermore to put his country first. Taking advantage of Governor Palin’s record as a reformer, he told professionals in Washington to “Watch out! Change is coming.”

With Sarah Palin standing beside him, he stole Obama’s campaign theme right out from under him. McCain is now the champion of change.

Which man’s words can you believe in, Obama’s or McCain’s?

Published in Liberal September 7, 2008 

Who is Governor Palin?

A Christian (non-denominational Protestant) and mother of five, Governor of Alaska, Commander of the Alaska National Guard, political reformer who has shaken the “old boy network” of corrupt government in Alaska, long ago a star of her secondary school State Championship basketball team, ardent fisherman and hunter, a long-time manual worker and co-president of a small family business, toughminded and no-nonsense campaigner, Sarah Palin’s nickname in basketball was “Barracuda.” Do not sell her short. I loved the comment of one man: “More valuable than a pearl is a wife who loves to hunt and fish.” And whose favorite food is Moose stew. A woman who hunts Moose and Caribou is not to be trifled with. Turn to see another facet: Behind her horn-rim glasses, Sarah as a young woman finished second in the “Miss Alaska” beauty pageant – take a look at her photo. She might well become the first Vice President who earlier worked as a journalist and, for a time, as a sportscaster. She has not yet been overawed by any journalist.

First thing she did as Governor was sell the gubernatorial jet plane. Next, she sold the governor’s limousine fleet. “Don’t need ‘em,” she said. She has bent the oil companies of Alaska to her will. She has fired incompetent and dishonest appointees in government, even though they were part of the Republican establishment. She has been a Governor of the people, by the people, for the people. Her approval rating among the people of Alaska is 80%. Governor Palin knows more about oil and natural gas than any other major candidate– it is Alaska’s main industry, treasure, and potential. She knows more about the military than Barack and Joe Biden multiplied by two. Her state lies fifty miles from Russia across the Bering Strait. She deals with international companies from all around the world. Her oldest son enlisted in the army on September 11, 2007, and will depart for Iraq on September 11, 2008. She is enormously proud of him – and is very grateful that John McCain will soon be his Commander-in-chief.

Her youngest son, born this past April, was diagnosed early with Downs syndrome. She insisted on bringing “this beautiful child” to birth. Her husband, who is part Eskimo, is a tall, handsome member of the Steelworker’s Union, in his capacity as a worker in the offshore oilfields. His other main business is commercial fishing, a family occupation for generations. This is a couple that both work with their hands (she helps work their commercial fishing vessel on weekends). They love sports. He is the World Champion Snowmobile Driver.

The nomination of Governor Palin sent shockwaves of joy throughout the social conservative half of the Republican Party, the pro-life voters most of all, and a great many ordinary Republican, Independent, and even Democratic women. Immediately money in support of the campaign and offers to volunteer poured in. Nothing has energized the Republican “base” like this choice. This campaign is now a very different contest. If Governor Palin makes no other contribution to the McCain campaign, this is an enormous one. A sine qua non. The day before where there was gloom, the day of her nomination brought joy and commitment. In 2004, some 65% of voters who were regular churchgoers voted Republican, whereas about the same percentage of those who seldom or never go to church voted Democratic. In America, the churchgoers outnumber the latter by a significant margin. Not long ago, most religious people – evangelical Protestants, Catholics and Jews – were the backbone of the Democratic Party. No longer.

To be sure, on Thursday August 28, Senator Obama did put on a convention “Spectacular.” He scheduled its last night in Denver’s huge football stadium, and designed it as for the most part a rock concert. He gave his usual star-quality eloquent speech. However, this time it was not unitive but highly partisan, a standard Democratic speech (promising to spend tens of billlions of dollars with every minute that passed). At its end, bathed in rapturous applause, before and afterwards surrounded by famous rock stars and singers, his program delivered a gigantic fireworks display above the Denver skyline, outlined against the dark Rockies just at the western edge of the city. The next two days showed a significant jump in the polls to a 48-42 lead. That sort of lead is a little lower than many recent Democrats at this stage in presidential elections. The reason national polls do not mean much this early is that most Democrats are bunched together in the large urban states. The Republican vote is scattered across the rest of the map. Thus, the large Democratic vote in a few places does not add up to a lead in electoral votes, which are apportioned among all the states. Still, Obama is expected to win this election – seldom or never have Republicans been so low, or Democrats so high in expectation.

On Monday, September 1, the Republicans begin their much more modest convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, usually a Democratic state (home of two Democratic presidential candidates in recent years, Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale). At the same time, a huge, dangerous Hurricane Gustav is bearing down awesomely on New Orleans, Louisiana, just as Katrina did three years ago. The Republicans may have to delay the start of their convention by at least a day, for Gustav is predicted to hit land on Monday morning. Some Democrats are gleefully praising God for their “luck” – not such a good thing to speak of while many Louisianans (a usually Democratic state) are in harm’s way. Maybe, though, the local government in Louisiana – city and state – along with federal assistance will do a much better a job in 2008 than during Katrina. In that case, that difference might redound to Republican credit. However the politics turn out, many Americans are thinking of relatives and friends in that region, and praying that they will come through the danger happily.

One should never forget that John McCain in his youth was a fighter pilot, and in many ways he still thinks like one. A fighter pilot must struggle for concealment in sun and clouds, hoping for surprise until the very last moment before swooping down on his prey. McCain loves surprise. He hates to be part of a herd. That is what “maverick” means, isn’t it? McCain showed his love for surprise in picking a woman of the people, a passionate and no-nonsense reformer, a tough and experienced executive for the past ten years (as mayor of her small town, now as governor) – a governor with a popular rating in Alaska about 65% higher than the U.S. Democratic Congress (now at 14 %).

Wednesday night September 3 will be a night of high drama. Governor Palin is scheduled to give her acceptance address to the excited Republican convention - and to the nation and the whole watching world.

The choice of this tough western governor was a high-risk sortie that candidate McCain took. It has tremendously excited Republicans, and added bold new lines to the profile of what is now the McCain-Palin ticket.

And every time Democrats complain that McCain’s new running mate is too inexperienced to be Vice President, they call attention to the even more grievous inexperience of their own choice for President.

Published in Liberal, September 2, 2008